You have to each Expression on the Internet by his real name? The so-called “real name” requirement will be highly to be highly controversial. One topic, two perspectives.
Anonymous in the network, comment, or just a real name – that’s why the current debate
Much of what you have to read hate comments on the Internet, is unbearable. That a very large part of these comments is not widely used by authors to indicate your real name, is for many even more unbearable. Because in Anonymous, the comfort zone is pleasant rush to insult and threaten without being exposed to the risk of must for ever bear the consequences.
The origin of the current debate
Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Chairman of the conservative Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), had triggered their call for rules on the Internet a fierce debate. The reason for the current thrust of the CDU Boss, were some of the comments in the network after the violent death of Walter Lübcke. He was President of the government of the government Presidium of Kassel in the Federal state of Hesse and friendly attitude was for his refugee known. After the death of Lübckes there had been in social media from the extreme right Milieu, a lot of comments, in which joy and gloating over his death were expressed, and some even called to assassinate a politician.
According to Walter Lübckes death, there was a lot of anonymous malice in the network
“We need to talk about whether or not everything is allowed to be. Or whether we need a stricter etiquette,” said Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer in respect of the death of her personally known Lübcke, and more: “I want to know who is behind such comments.” Even if the reaction of the CDU-Boss appears only too human, has triggered violent reactions. It would make sense if only users are allowed to participate under their real names, the so-called real name, in Internet debates?
Real name – of course!
But who thinks only in approaches, such as the family likes to go to Walter Lübcke, which in addition to the unspeakable pain, the sudden violent death must also be dealt with Schadenfreude, hatred, and malice on the Internet, you can understand that the introduction of a clear name of obligation seems to make sense.
After all, who would after such a heinous crime will be open to the fun of it – with his name, the could read friends, relatives, colleagues, neighbors, and employers? Hard to imagine. The number of sardonic comments would be in this case are likely to be significantly lower. A good thing! In addition, it should be Yes, of course, that is his opinion. So who has something to say, you should also do this under his own name – even those who offended others. Or he makes his insult, to be whole.
To clear the name of duty: Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, and Manfred Weber
Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer is with your desire to clear the name of duty on the Internet not alone. President of the Bundestag Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) had also supported this, as well as Manfred Weber of the Bavarian CDU sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), wants to become the top candidate of the conservative European people’s party (EPP), currently the President of the Commission of the EU. Many politicians – regardless of political affiliation – have collected their own bad experiences with anonymous insult on the net. You can therefore move well in any other insult to the victims inside.
Real name – no way!
Many bloggers and net activists are facing a possible clear the name of duty, however, extremely critical and are up in arms against it. In fact, there are good reasons for anonymity in the network, for example, the three “K”: the desire to have children, illnesses, and disasters. Who would like to be pregnant, but the Problem, turns like to anonymously on forums in the Internet, in the same way as someone who is pregnant, but still don’t want it to power the large, round – or even someone who wants to have an abortion. If employers, friends, neighbors, or relatives of them to learn early, or at all, it could mean a permanent Ban after.
Not everyone who moves anonymously in the network, is equal to a criminal – many of them have nachvollziebare reasons
It is the same with diseases, you know more and would like to replace it. The majority of people, it would not be right, if the Public knew what kind of disease you. In the Anonymous openly and honestly can discuss it. The last “K” stands for personal disasters. This can be private things, which can bring a completely. For example, thoughts of suicide, will not trust with his real name about the Internet, anonymous might.
But there are still more weighty reasons. One reads: “The Internet forgets nothing.” Who ever has released something under his real name, to answer to, possibly decades later, and – even if he now has a completely different opinion. Also: There are a number of countries in which freedom of expression is severely restricted. Who manifests itself there under his right name is critical in the network, for example, land management, risks may be life.
Facebook looks a lot – would know the network of all the correct name of billions of users, it would have even more Power
And then there are companies such as Facebook, a real names mandatory. At least Facebook tried for years to bring his users to use their real names. Who knows the real name of its Users, can connect you with information from other channels and so much more Knowledge about its users win. You want them to?
Oh, and then there’s the example of South Korea. There was introduced in 2007 with a clear name of duty. It has, however, led only to a very small decrease of offensive Remarks – and was later repealed by the Supreme court of South Korea again.
And now?
In principle, and is not expected to be able to the majority of people in this country agree that anonymous hate-comments as in the case of Walter Lübcke – and that it would be desirable, if one were to intervene here.
But there are areas – such as the one just mentioned – where the wrong name make sense. Perhaps it would be wise, therefore, to go a approach that it is more clearly defined, where a clear name duty might make sense. This easy on the Internet to apply, seems just a bit too short thought.